Patterson v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 8

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Patterson v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 8, 2011-Ohio-4785.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us PHILIP T. PATTERSON Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8 Defendant Case No. 2011-02221-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert MEMORANDUM DECISION {¶1} Plaintiff, Philip Patterson, filed this action against defendant, Department of Transportation (ODOT), contending that he suffered property damage as a proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous condition on Interstate 71 northbound near the State Route 134 overpass. Plaintiff related that he hit a large pothole in the right hand lane * * * I had no chance to swerve. Plaintiff recalled that the described incident occurred on January 29, 2011 at approximately 5:45 p.m. Plaintiff requested damage recovery in the amount of $721.63, the stated total cost of replacement parts. The filing fee was paid. {¶2} Defendant determined that plaintiff s incident occurred at milepost 52.71 on I-71 in Clinton County. Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no ODOT personnel had any knowledge of the particular damage-causing pothole prior to plaintiff s January 29, 2011 incident. Defendant related that, [t]his section of roadway has an average daily traffic count of over 25,000 vehicles. Defendant asserted that plaintiff did not offer any evidence to establish the length of time that the pothole existed on I-71 northbound prior to his incident. {¶3} Additionally, defendant contended that plaintiff did not offer any evidence to prove that the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant advised that the ODOT Clinton County Manager conducts roadway inspections on all state roadways within the county on a routine basis, at least one to two times a month. Apparently, no potholes were discovered in the vicinity of plaintiff s incident the last time that section of roadway was inspected prior to January 29, 2011. The claim file is devoid of any inspection record prepared by the Clinton County Manager. Defendant argued that plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to prove that his property damage was attributable to any conduct on the part of ODOT personnel. Defendant asserted that the roadway was in relatively good condition at the time of plaintiff s incident. Defendant stated that, [a] review of the six-month maintenance history [record submitted] for the area in question reveals that three (3) Pothole Patching Operations were performed on I-71 around milepost 52.71. However, the repairs for northbound I-71 were completed on December 22, 2010. Defendant noted, that if ODOT personnel had detected any potholes they would have been reported and promptly scheduled for repair. {¶4} Plaintiff filed a response asserting that the pothole he hit was somewhere on I-71 northbound between exits 50 and 65. According to plaintiff, the previously stated location was a best guess of approximate location. In addition, plaintiff requested various documents in order to prove that the pothole existed and was patched after the January 29, 2011 incident. 1 The clerk notes that proof of the existence of the pothole and the date it was patched are not the requisite factors for plaintiff to prevail in this action. {¶5} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio 1 On May 3, 2011, defendant filed a reply to plaintiff s response, which included additional documents. However, proof of service upon plaintiff is not endorsed thereon or separately filed as required by Civ.R. 5(D). Therefore, defendant s filing is STRICKEN from the record. State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. However, [i]t is the duty of a party on whom the burden of proof rests to produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If the evidence so produced furnishes only a basis for a choice among different possibilities as to any issue in the case, he fails to sustain such burden. Paragraph three of the syllabus in Steven v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 198, 30 O.O. 415, 61 N.E. 2d 198, approved and followed. This court, as trier of fact, determines questions of proximate causation. Shinaver v. Szymanski (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 51, 14 OBR 446, 471 N.E. 2d 477. {¶6} Defendant has the duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition for the motoring public. Knickel v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1976), 49 Ohio App. 2d 335, 3 O.O. 3d 413, 361 N.E. 2d 486. However, defendant is not an insurer of the safety of its highways. See Kniskern v. Township of Somerford (1996), 112 Ohio App. 3d 189, 678 N.E. 2d 273; Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 67 Ohio App. 3d 723, 588 N.E. 2d 864. {¶7} In order to prove a breach of the duty to maintain the highways, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the precise condition or defect alleged to have caused the accident. McClellan v. ODOT (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 247, 517 N.E. 2d 1388. Defendant is only liable for roadway conditions of which it has notice but fails to reasonably correct. Bussard v. Dept. of Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 31 OBR 64, 507 N.E. 2d 1179. {¶8} Generally, in order to recover in a suit involving damage proximately caused by roadway conditions including potholes, plaintiff must prove that either: 1) defendant had actual or constructive notice of the pothole and failed to respond in a reasonable time or responded in a negligent manner, or 2) that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently. Denis v. Department of Transportation (1976), 75-0287-AD. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to establish that ODOT had actual notice of the pothole prior to plaintiff s incident. Therefore, in order to recover plaintiff must produce evidence to prove constructive notice of the defect or negligent maintenance. {¶9} [C]onstructive notice is that which the law regards as sufficient to give notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice or knowledge. In re Estate of Fahle (1950), 90 Ohio App. 195, 197-198, 47 O.O. 231, 105 N.E. 2d 429. A finding of constructive notice is a determination the court must make on the facts of each case not simply by applying a pre-set time standard for the discovery of certain road hazards. Bussard at 4. {¶10} The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time the defective condition developed. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. {¶11} In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show that sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition appears, so that under the circumstances defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Dept. of Transportation (1978), 78-0126-AD. Size of the defect is insufficient to show notice or duration of existence. O Neil v. Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 287, 587 N.E. 2d 891. Obviously, the requisite length of time sufficient to constitute constructive notice varies with each specific situation. Danko v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (Feb. 4, 1993), Franklin App. 92AP-1183. No evidence has shown that ODOT had constructive notice of the pothole. {¶12} Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to infer that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently or that defendant s acts caused the defective condition. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011-AD. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiff may have suffered from the pothole. {¶13} In the instant claim, plaintiff has failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove that defendant maintained known hazardous roadway conditions. Plaintiff failed to prove that his property damage was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant, or that defendant was negligent in maintaining the roadway area, or that there was any actionable negligence on the part of defendant. Taylor v. Transportation Dept. (1998), 97-10898-AD; Weininger v. Department of Transportation (1999), 9910909-AD; Witherell v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (2000), 2000-04758-AD. Consequently, plaintiff s claim is denied. Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us PHILLIP T. PATTERSON Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8 Defendant Case No. 2011-02221-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Phillip T. Patterson 5930 Groff Court Hilliard, Ohio 43026 SJM/laa 5/6 Filed 6/14/11 Sent to S.C. reporter 9/21/11 Jerry Wray, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.